Insulin Spike

So what you're saying is that a perfect shake would be either 50% milk or cottage cheese blended with 50% whey, as far as the protein requirements post workout?

What about the faster uptake of the whey? Wouldn't that be done with by digestion and leave the casein proteins still at work?
 
Milk is a pretty good food for muscle gain


for the whole milk example

Milk ingestion stimulates net muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise.

* Elliot TA,
* Cree MG,
* Sanford AP,
* Wolfe RR,
* Tipton KD.

Metabolism Unit, Shriners Hospitals for Children and Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have examined the response of muscle protein to resistance exercise and nutrient ingestion. Net muscle protein synthesis results from the combination of resistance exercise and amino acid intake. No study has examined the response of muscle protein to ingestion of protein in the context of a food. This study was designed to determine the response of net muscle protein balance following resistance exercise to ingestion of nutrients as components of milk. METHOD: Three groups of volunteers ingested one of three milk drinks each: 237 g of fat-free milk (FM), 237 g of whole milk (WM), and 393 g of fat-free milk isocaloric with the WM (IM). Milk was ingested 1 h following a leg resistance exercise routine. Net muscle protein balance was determined by measuring amino acid balance across the leg. RESULTS: Arterial concentrations of representative amino acids increased in response to milk ingestion. Threonine balance and phenylalanine balance were both > 0 following milk ingestion. Net amino acid uptake for threonine was 2.8-fold greater (P < 0.05) for WM than for FM. Mean uptake of phenylalanine was 80 and 85% greater for WM and IM, respectively, than for FM, but not statistically different. Threonine uptake relative to ingested was significantly (P < 0.05) higher for WM (21 +/- 6%) than FM (11 +/- 5%), but not IM (12 +/- 3%). Mean phenylalanine uptake/ingested also was greatest for WM, but not significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Ingestion of milk following resistance exercise results in phenylalanine and threonine uptake, representative of net muscle protein synthesis. These results suggest that whole milk may have increased utilization of available amino acids for protein synthesis.
 
Uh, your answer had nothing to do with the question or your former post. We were talking about optimal ratios I believe. I just wanted to clarify what it seemed like you were trying to show us with the charts.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Oct. 11 2006,09:37)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You don't GET insulin spike post workout. From what I've studied, the simple carbs go to replacing glycogen in the muscles. It's the one time of day you can actually eat sugar if you want. Fructose is a no-no since it converts to glycogen in the liver, not the muscles that need it. Fruit fructose is less than what you'd ingest by packets or bottles.
Here's a calculator for PWO shakes:
http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/pwcalculator.php</div>
Of course you do its the insulin that transports it through glut 4 transporters to the muscle to be turned to glycogen
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Oct. 14 2006,03:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I wasnt trying to show optimal ratios at all, just that slower in some situations is better.</div>
Exactly slower can be better. ITs the pre workout meal that is important in ueling the body and promoting repair. Post workout is not as important fastactging is not key

There is no optimal ratio of the nutrients everyone respond differently and it depends on previous diet intake and work done
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">ITs the pre workout meal that is important in ueling the body and promoting repair.</div>

Provide us evidence that a fast acting protein provides greater evidence than slow protein.

in terms of pre vs post

Stimulation of Net Muscle Protein Synthesis by Whey Protein Ingestion Before and After Exercise.

* Tipton KD,
* Elliott TA,
* Cree MG,
* Aarsland AA,
* Sanford AP,
* Wolfe RR.

School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Timing of nutrient ingestion has been demonstrated to influence the anabolic response of muscle following exercise. Previously, we demonstrated that net amino acid uptake was greater when free essential amino acids plus carbohydrates were ingested prior to resistance exercise rather than following exercise. However, it is unclear if ingestion of whole proteins prior to exercise would stimulate a superior response compared to following exercise. This study was designed to examine the response of muscle protein balance to ingestion of whey proteins both prior to and following resistance exercise. Healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to one of two groups. A solution of whey proteins was consumed either immediately prior to exercise (PRE; n=8) or immediately following exercise (POST; n=9). Each subject performed 10 sets of 8 repetitions of leg extension exercise. Phenylalanine concentrations were measured in femoral arteriovenous samples to determine balance across the leg. Arterial amino acid concentrations were elevated by ~50% and net amino acid balance switched from negative to positive following ingestion of proteins at either time. Amino acid uptake was not significantly different between PRE and POST when calculated from the beginning of exercise (67+/-22 and 27+/-10 for PRE and POST, respectively) or from the ingestion of each drink (60+/-17 and 63+/-15 for PRE and POST, respectively). Thus, the response of net muscle protein balance to timing of intact protein ingestion does not respond as does that of the combination of free amino acids and carbohydrate.
 
I guess I need to quit getting my info from ABC and start listening to Aaron! I had reasons for that site, and it seemed as though they backed up everything they said with studies, rather than opinions.
It sounds like my method of drinking a pitcher-sized shake from 1/2hr before workout to 1/2 hr. after is allright after all.
 
<div>
(Maxgain @ Oct. 15 2006,02:16)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Of course you do its the insulin that transports it through glut 4 transporters to the muscle to be turned to glycogen</div>
Following exercise there are two phases of glucose uptake by the muscle. The first phase is insulin INdependent, due to contraction stimulated GLUT translocation.

The second, longer phase is insulin dependent, which requires insulin to stimulate the GLUT translocation.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Oct. 16 2006,08:55)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I guess I need to quit getting my info from ABC and start listening to Aaron! I had reasons for that site, and it seemed as though they backed up everything they said with studies, rather than opinions.
It sounds like my method of drinking a pitcher-sized shake from 1/2hr before workout to 1/2 hr. after is allright after all.</div>
Some of the stuff on ABC bodybuilding looks like they either do not read the papers, or just dont have a clue what they are talking about.
 
I frequent forums of a few sites, I cant say I read many articles at any sites.

www.extreme-physique.com
www.sostrength.com
www.bodyrecomposition.com
and a couple of mainly powerlifting forums.

now journals are a different story.

american journal of clinical nutrition
journal of nutrition
british journal of nutrition
european journal of clinical nutrition
journal of physiology
Journal of applied physiology
American journal of physiology (mixture of multiple journals)
international journal of sport nutrition and exercise metabolism
obesity research
european journal of applied physiology
medicine and science in sport and exercise
sports medicine

amongst others that I just access when I need to.
 
I'm sorry to quote a rather &quot;old&quot; post from this thread, but I just saw this thread and noticed what is probably one of the coolest stuff to quote.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> Except that I am a scientist </div>

Damn, that's telling them.
cool.gif
That was just so cool. That's like James Bond telling a bunch of beat cops &quot;Yeah, sure, but I AM a friggin' secret agent!&quot;
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Oct. 14 2006,22:21)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">ITs the pre workout meal that is important in ueling the body and promoting repair.</div>

Provide us evidence that a fast acting protein provides greater evidence than slow protein.

in terms of pre vs post

Stimulation of Net Muscle Protein Synthesis by Whey Protein Ingestion Before and After Exercise.

   * Tipton KD,
   * Elliott TA,
   * Cree MG,
   * Aarsland AA,
   * Sanford AP,
   * Wolfe RR.

School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Timing of nutrient ingestion has been demonstrated to influence the anabolic response of muscle following exercise. Previously, we demonstrated that net amino acid uptake was greater when free essential amino acids plus carbohydrates were ingested prior to resistance exercise rather than following exercise. However, it is unclear if ingestion of whole proteins prior to exercise would stimulate a superior response compared to following exercise. This study was designed to examine the response of muscle protein balance to ingestion of whey proteins both prior to and following resistance exercise. Healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to one of two groups. A solution of whey proteins was consumed either immediately prior to exercise (PRE; n=8) or immediately following exercise (POST; n=9). Each subject performed 10 sets of 8 repetitions of leg extension exercise. Phenylalanine concentrations were measured in femoral arteriovenous samples to determine balance across the leg. Arterial amino acid concentrations were elevated by ~50% and net amino acid balance switched from negative to positive following ingestion of proteins at either time. Amino acid uptake was not significantly different between PRE and POST when calculated from the beginning of exercise (67+/-22 and 27+/-10 for PRE and POST, respectively) or from the ingestion of each drink (60+/-17 and 63+/-15 for PRE and POST, respectively). Thus, the response of net muscle protein balance to timing of intact protein ingestion does not respond as does that of the combination of free amino acids and carbohydrate.</div>
I wont be proviing evidence since i said there would not be a noticable difference between them I believe you misread me.


Tipton seems to be quite contradicting then.

While immediate consumption of amino acids combined with a carbohydrate source post exercise has been indicated to enhance protein accretion, it is important to understand the effect of a pre workout feeding on this parameter. Once again Tipton and colleagues (2001) from the University of Texas medical branch were up to the
They had six participants consume a liquid meal of 6 grams of essential amino acids combined with 35 grams of sucrose (EACsolution) prior to exercise (PRE), or immediately after exercise (POST). Protein kinetics were measured at rest, during exercise and up to two hours post exercise. Results indicated that the PRE condition increased blood flow by 324 % to the leg compared to a 201 % increase in the post condition, and this corresponded with a650 % increase in phenylalanine delivery to the muscle compared to a 250 % increase in the POST condition. Further phenylalanine uptake across the leg was 160 % greater in the PRE condition than the POST condition. Perhaps of most interestwas the finding that protein balance went from negative at rest to positive during exercise and post exercise for the PRE condition, while the post condition remained negative during both rest and exercise, and turned positive after exercise. It is important to note that over the 3 hour measure that both the PRE and POST wereeffective in turning the overall muscle balance from negative to positive. However this response was greater in the PRE than POST. Before analyzing the mechanisms of these results it is important to recognize thatthe results favor the PRE condition, as each of the three hours following EAC consumption in the PRE trial were measured, where as the POST condition onlymeasured two hours following EAC consumption. Therefore the authors make further calculations of only the final two hours of collection. However, even whenmeasured this way their was an 80 % greater amino acid uptake for the PRE thanPOST conditions. However, these results did not reach significance. The timing element is critical in this study as blood flow is greatly increased by muscular contraction. This effect appeared to be heightened with ingestion of a pre workout amino acid solution. Further, the combined effects of increased blood flow and elevated amino acid concentrations elicited a potent anabolic stimulus. Typicallynet protein balance during exercise is negative, and while protein synthesis isstimulated following training, it either remains unchanged or is decreased during exercise (Tipton et al., 2001). However, protein degradation is markedly increased during exercise and results in a net negative protein balance (Tipton et al., 2001). As predicted by Tipton et al. (2001) the pre workout nutrition appeared to counter these effectsSummarizing the dataWhile protein synthesis is elevated up to 48 hours following an exercise session, protein degradation is also increased; resulting in a negative protein balance ifadditional nutrients are not supplied (Phillips et al., 2005). In this context post workout amino acid feedings are critical to muscle protein accretion. Evidence from Rasmussen et al. (2000) suggests that there is no difference between amino acid consumption one and three hours after training. However long term results from Esmarck et al. (2001) and acute evidence from Levenhagen et al. (2001) suggest that immediate post exercise amino acid feedings provide a more favorable anabolic response than feedings 2-3 hours post exercise. Preworkout nutrition has also been indicated to be a critical component of stimulating muscular hypertrophy. Tipton et al. (2001) demonstrated that pre workout nutrition reversed the typically negative protein balance seen in exercise to a positive protein balance.
 
you said

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Exactly slower can be better. ITs the pre workout meal that is important in ueling the body and promoting repair. Post workout is not as important fastactging is not key

There is no optimal ratio of the nutrients everyone respond differently and it depends on previous diet intake and work done </div>

where do you say &quot;said there would not be a noticable difference&quot;?

and tipton is not contradictory in the slightest
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Oct. 22 2006,05:29)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">you said

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
Exactly slower can be better. ITs the pre workout meal that is important in ueling the body and promoting repair. Post workout is not as important fastactging is not key

There is no optimal ratio of the nutrients everyone respond differently and it depends on previous diet intake and work done </div>

where do you say &quot;said there would not be a noticable difference&quot;?

and tipton is not contradictory in the slightest</div>
What is wrong with you I say slower can be better you say Provide us evidence that a fast acting protein provides greater evidence than slow protein Sweet lord.
Do you want evidence that caesin overall is better than whey no problem.
The question I ask are you even a scientist you appear to be someone with access to journals but have no proper undersatnding that you can criticlly analyse. Id like to know your credentials.
Also if you were in te community you know colleagues have raised quastions over Tiptons reliablity. But I am willing to take him at face value here as it still proves my point.
So forget about your journals for a second and think.

While you say Tipton is not contradictory I just posted-which you so conveniently ignored- proof the pre workout nutrition is better for workout recovery than post. Now with this knowledge in arms thet your protein pre workout is promoting synthesis one logically can presume that now post workout a slower acting protein will furtehr add to this over the next few hours having a more important effect promoting post workout anti catabolism.
 
<div>
(Maxgain @ Oct. 23 2006,01:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What is wrong with you I say slower can be better you say Provide us evidence that a fast acting protein provides greater evidence than slow protein Sweet lord.</div>
Seeing you have difficulty reading your own text, you said slower may be better in terms of POST workout, I questioned this

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">iTs the pre workout meal that is important in ueling the body and promoting repair. Post workout is not as important fastactging is not key</div>

Which was in regards to PRE workout, and 'sweet lord' you have not yet replied to this question

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Do you want evidence that caesin overall is better than whey no problem.</div>

show me.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The question I ask are you even a scientist you appear to be someone with access to journals but have no proper undersatnding that you can criticlly analyse. Id like to know your credentials.</div>My work, involving researching protein calls me a scientist, so I guess I am.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Also if you were in te community you know colleagues have raised quastions over Tiptons reliablity.</div>
Reliability? where did I question this?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> But I am willing to take him at face value here as it still proves my point.</div>No, we are discussing protein, you provide one of his papers looking at amino acids AND carbohydrate. What was that about critically analysing things? <div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
So forget about your journals for a second and think.</div> my journal?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">While you say Tipton is not contradictory I just posted-which you so conveniently ignored- proof the pre workout nutrition is better for workout recovery than post.</div>
No, we were discussing protein, you provided a study that compounds the informaton with carbohydrate, thanks for that.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> Now with this knowledge in arms thet your protein pre workout is promoting synthesis one logically can presume that now post workout a slower acting protein will furtehr add to this over the next few hours having a more important effect promoting post workout anti catabolism.</div>
So now your 'presuming' stuff
 
Ok one last attempt to explain this.

I said the preworkout meal fuels the workout.
The post i made showed that preworkout fuel was more important than postworkout for muscle synthesis and thus recovery. Now nutrition is not a known science regardless of the different bichemistry studies you quote any trainer/nutritionist will tell you optimsiation will differ from person.
Now If I have my pre workout meal fueling and promoting synthesis during the workout there is no need for a fastacting protein post workout. An anticatabolic such as caesin may be better served though in truth differences will be minute your whole nutrition intake is what is important.

To refute my post because it included carbohydrates is ridiculous. who here on this site takes a pwo meal without carbs- Anyone besides Aaron?- so thus to discuss it without carbs would be less relevant to this discussion.

Now this is my point if you have a question im not answering from the original posts please ask it again Im obviously skipping over it.

Regards
Maxgain
 
<div>
(Maxgain @ Oct. 24 2006,04:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ok one last attempt to explain this.

I said the preworkout meal fuels the workout.
The post i made showed that preworkout fuel was more important than postworkout for muscle synthesis and thus recovery. Now nutrition is not a known science regardless of the different bichemistry studies you quote any trainer/nutritionist will tell you optimsiation will differ from person.</div>
you were talking in regards to fast acting for PRE workout, to which you showed nothing.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now If I have my pre workout meal fueling and promoting synthesis during the workout there is no need for a fastacting protein post workout. An anticatabolic such as caesin may be better served though in truth differences will be minute your whole nutrition intake is what is important.</div>

Anti catabolic is a odd term.  

&quot;Anti&quot; is a prefix meaning &quot;opposite&quot;, and the opposite of catabolic is ?

Both proteins are on balance anabolic.  The way they achieve this anabolism occurs in different ways due to the rate of appearance.  Consuming whey in a specific way will replicate the results of consuming casein, or perhaps achieve a greater result.

The main reason the supplement people tag casein with the 'anti-catabolic' term is because it does not stimulate breakdown or oxidation to any great extent, where as whey results in greater breakdown and far greater oxidation.  

But the reason for talking about milk, or a ratio of whey/casein as milk is simple.  

When consuming milk or a whey/casein blend, the whey is not held back for digestion by the casein, it is predominantly released by the curd, and available for digestion nearly immediately, which shows up in amino acid appearance data showing amino acid appearance being nearly identical between a blend and whey (up until ~60-75minute area).

This will result in the raised synthesis of whey, the reduced breakdown and oxidation of casein, leading to a greater anabolic result, ie more anabolic than whey by itself.

Due to the lack of data, it makes it difficult to say if it would be better.  But with the evidence of no difference before and after from whey, and other data showing a blend is better afterwards, the weight of evidence would point to a blend of proteins as the potentially the best.

Now when talking about protein and carbohydrate blends, it makes it more difficult, as the EAA+CHO feedings, like the abstract you provided above do not look at protein (or amino acids) alone.

So what is causing the greater protein synthesis effect pre/post, the amino acids availability or the carbohydrate availability?  

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">To refute my post because it included carbohydrates is ridiculous. who here on this site takes a pwo meal without carbs- Anyone besides Aaron?- so thus to discuss it without carbs would be less relevant to this discussion.</div>

I commented on the supposed contradiction that you read into it.  

Because seeing as we were discussing protein by ityself, I provided the only paper comparing protein by itself on pre and post workout protein synthesis.  
Becuase alternative work provides a different result does not mean its contradictory, just different, and critically analysing the research itself would show this.
 
<div>
(Aaron_F @ Oct. 23 2006,21:31)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(Maxgain @ Oct. 24 2006,04:39)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ok one last attempt to explain this.

I said the preworkout meal fuels the workout.
The post i made showed that preworkout fuel was more important than postworkout for muscle synthesis and thus recovery. Now nutrition is not a known science regardless of the different bichemistry studies you quote any trainer/nutritionist will tell you optimsiation will differ from person.</div>
you were talking in regards to fast acting for PRE workout, to which you showed nothing.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Now If I have my pre workout meal fueling and promoting synthesis during the workout there is no need for a fastacting protein post workout. An anticatabolic such as caesin may be better served though in truth differences will be minute your whole nutrition intake is what is important.</div>

Anti catabolic is a odd term.  

&quot;Anti&quot; is a prefix meaning &quot;opposite&quot;, and the opposite of catabolic is ?

Both proteins are on balance anabolic.  The way they achieve this anabolism occurs in different ways due to the rate of appearance.  Consuming whey in a specific way will replicate the results of consuming casein, or perhaps achieve a greater result.

The main reason the supplement people tag casein with the 'anti-catabolic' term is because it does not stimulate breakdown or oxidation to any great extent, where as whey results in greater breakdown and far greater oxidation.  

But the reason for talking about milk, or a ratio of whey/casein as milk is simple.  

When consuming milk or a whey/casein blend, the whey is not held back for digestion by the casein, it is predominantly released by the curd, and available for digestion nearly immediately, which shows up in amino acid appearance data showing amino acid appearance being nearly identical between a blend and whey (up until ~60-75minute area).

This will result in the raised synthesis of whey, the reduced breakdown and oxidation of casein, leading to a greater anabolic result, ie more anabolic than whey by itself.

Due to the lack of data, it makes it difficult to say if it would be better.  But with the evidence of no difference before and after from whey, and other data showing a blend is better afterwards, the weight of evidence would point to a blend of proteins as the potentially the best.

Now when talking about protein and carbohydrate blends, it makes it more difficult, as the EAA+CHO feedings, like the abstract you provided above do not look at protein (or amino acids) alone.

So what is causing the greater protein synthesis effect pre/post, the amino acids availability or the carbohydrate availability?  

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">To refute my post because it included carbohydrates is ridiculous. who here on this site takes a pwo meal without carbs- Anyone besides Aaron?- so thus to discuss it without carbs would be less relevant to this discussion.</div>

I commented on the supposed contradiction that you read into it.  

Because seeing as we were discussing protein by ityself, I provided the only paper comparing protein by itself on pre and post workout protein synthesis.  
Becuase alternative work provides a different result does not mean its contradictory, just different, and critically analysing the research itself would show this.</div>
Can you please quoute where i said the preworkout meal shold be fast acting. This is not my belief at all.

anticatabolic does not mean anabolic when in the context of discussing proteins -maybe not as scientific but logical and helps explain the differenc to people- I can prevent catabolism yet maintain a low steady N balance that would not be (highly) anabolic in comparison to a food such as whey.

and yes i am aware of whey and caesin absorption rates which is why i often mix the 2.

I dont see how you are not accepting the study because it consists of CHOs and EAA.
The point it gets across is 100% valid the meals are the same but taken preworkout is better than post. That is simply my point.

Just to let you know you said there was no need for a fast portein post workout. i agree and state the preworkout meal promotes reair and fuels so slow is perfect after yet you looked for an argument and i was not even disagreeing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top